Net neutrality is all but dead. Here's what happens now.

https://mashable.com/ ^ | 4/23/18 | MJ FRANKLIN

[rurgan]

Soros is behind this “net neutrality” lie. It’s just more comunist/marxist freedom robbing oppression.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-foundation-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house

One of the things soros, Obama, and Zuckerberg wanted to do was cripple the ISPs so that Facebook , google etc all marxist companies could censor conservatives more effectively and it was working. No one could complain to the ISPs. Facebook , google , youtube ,amazon, would have a complete monopoly.

CNN, Ny times etc. , Google , twitter,facebook, Soros, Obama etc. all the communists are for “net neutrality” . That should tell you all you need to know.

The Internet was free for 20 years until 1915 when obama and Soros imposed the 400 pages of government regulations called “net neutrality”.

[rurgan]

" It essentially gives the “content providers” like google, streaming services, amazon, etc, tie up limited bandwidth and create bottlenecks that will slow access by smaller entities.”

Good points. This “net neutrality” allowed facebook, google youtube, twitter etc. to keep out competition better so that they could maintain their monopoly and censor the Internet. This was their plan.It's amazing how many conservatives even on this forum were fooled by the propaganda and lies:
>

With Soros’ net neutrrality: One of the things soros, Obama, and Zuckerberg wanted to do was cripple the ISPs so that Facebook , google etc all marxist companies could censor conservatives more effectively and it was working. No one could complain to the ISPs. Facebook , google , youtube ,amazon,twitter would have a complete monopoly.

Now with net neutrality dead conservatives can build facebook , google, twitter , amazon etc. competing alternatives that don't censor and allow true freedom on the internet something we haven't had since 2015 and allowed facbook , google etc. to keep out competitors.

[Excellence]

The repeal of net neutrality would turn internet service providers into gatekeepers – allowing them to put profits over consumers while controlling what we see, what we do, and what we say online,”

And only Facebook, Google, and Twitter should be allowed to do that.

[rurgan]

Facebook, Google, yotutube and Twitter,and Amazon all marxist/democrat companies were censoring conservatives since obama passed this communist net neutrality.

Now with soros’ “net neutrality” dead and as long as Trump is president it stays dead : This allows conservatives to build free speech alternatives to facebook, Twitter, Amazon ,Google , youtube etc.

“Conservative facebook”, Christian Tube, Free speech internet search” etc. .

[jonno]

It’s simple actually - net neutrality was more of the standard leftist “fairness” tripe.

The fact is - like everything else in life, if you want more, if you want better, you should be willing to pay for it.

Imagine a “restaurant neutrality” bill where restaurants can no longer offer prime rib for a higher price and ground chuck at a lower price - that’s not fair; everyone should get the same thing at the same price - right? But of course like everything the left touts in terms of fairness, what will simply happen is that NO ONE will get prime rib anymore. Why? If a restaurant is being FORCED to provide a product, they’re going to provide the cheapest thing they can get away with. Heck, in the “planned economy”, eventually, we might be ecstatic to even get ground chuck.

The bottom line: net neutrality was an innovation killer; by not allowing companies to offer premium products - for a premium price, there would less and less incentive to make better and faster internet widgets.

The irony? While the leftists howl about the rich internet companies getting richer, we all benefit in the end. How? Simple. I may not be able to afford this years fancy new product, but in s few years - when the richest of us are paying for the latest new thing, the older things inevitably fall in price. It’s one of the great benefits of a free market.

[Henry Hnyellar]

So we’ll soon see an article from MJ FRANKLIN on how toll express lanes on highways are bad. And another one on how tolls for roads and bridges should be the same for big trucks as for cars.

Hey MJ, the 1930s called. They want their regulations back.

Apparently, MJ stands for Moron Juvenile.

“Under net neutrality, the internet functions as a one-lane highway — everyone and everything flows at the same rate, on the same path (more or less). Every site, no matter how big or small, was given equal access.”

[Jack Hammer]

I’ve been hearing about this whole ‘net neutrality’ thing for well over a year now (two years?), and I still don’t get it....

[Valpal1]

Yep, it’s about gamers wanting super highspeed internet access at the same price as Grandpa who only uses it for email and Grandma’s friendface thingy.

[BBell]

Join the club.

Remember the old saying? If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.

[Jack Hammer]

Remember it well. :-)

Seems to me that if someone, somewhere, wasn’t trying to give us the old nyuk nyuk nyuk, they’d just write something clear to sort all this out in print.

I think it’s all a big scam.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Heaven forbid people should be allowed to buy a faster lane on the Information Superhighway. How very un-American. Everybody should be slow and miserable regardless of how much money they have.

[Bikkuri]

I don't quite understand net neutrality. Every time I think I do I find out I don't.

Same here.. :/

[Bikkuri]

Whatever happened to Obungole handing over the net to the international community (China, I think)?

[Bikkuri]

Remember the old saying? If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.

I had that t-shirt as a kid ;^)

[Bikkuri]

Oh.. my mother ruined that shirt when she wore it once... she kinda ‘stretched’ the chest area, if you know what I mean :p

[Dr. Sivana]

https://www.recode.net/2017/7/12/15957130/amazon-facebook-google-tech-giants-rallying-defend-net-neutrality-rules-fcc-ajit-pai-vote-day-action

Net Neutrality would have kept the current hierarchy (Facebook, Google, Amazon) in place, and limit the ability of companies to create new ways to access the Internet.

If some service wants to provide high speed Internet for everything except Netflix (which uses up an ungodly amount of total Internet bandwidth) and charge accordingly, good on them. There are enough ways to ge to the Internet (DSL, cable, satellite, cell towers, etc.) that there can be genuine competition.

I don’t get to worked up on monopolies over movie viewing. The ability to transact commerce, look for work and send email will continue to be okay.

The Internet has not been broken in this way. We don’t need the government to monitor the ISPs to “fix it”.

[SoFloFreeper]

Bottom line for me? The big internet companies demand it—because it will crowd out small competitors.

Net neutrality is bad.

[mewzilla]

Net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet.

[Mad Dawgg]

It is simple. We are going back to the evil days of the internet prior to Net Neutrality when corporations held sway over all the INTERNETS and poor people died at their hands way back in...

2014... 😎👌

[rlmorel]

You are most welcome. I am an IT professional and a conservative, and I readily admit to being biased in that direction to begin with, and I watched an interview with Trump’s FCC Director Ajit Pai who laid it out quite well and convincingly for me.

I have been trying to find the interview...if I find it I will post it and ping you to it.